Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29637063›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2018

Control of Cattle Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases by Acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: A Retrospective Evaluation of Animal Health Measures According to Current One Health Concepts.

Gabrielle Laing, Maurizio Aragrande, Massimo Canali, Sara Savic, Daniele De Meneghi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Gabrielle LaingDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Maurizio AragrandeDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Massimo CanaliDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Sara SavicScientific Veterinary Institute "Novi Sad", Novi Sad, Serbia.
Daniele De MeneghiDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco-Torino, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITScientific Veterinary Institute "Novi Sad" · RSUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One health thinking for health interventions is increasingly being used to capture previously unseen stakeholders and impacts across people, animals, and the environment. The Network for One Health Evaluation (NEOH) proposes a systems-based framework to quantitatively assess integration and highlight the added value (theory of change) that this approach will bring to a project. This case study will retrospectively evaluate the pioneering use of a One Health (OH) approach during an international collaboration (satellite project to tackle production losses due to tick-borne disease in cattle in Southern Zambia in late 1980s). The objective of the evaluation is twofold: retrospective evaluation the OH-ness of the satellite project and identification of costs and benefits. Data for evaluation was recovered from publications, project documents, and witness interviews. A mixed qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken. In this case study, a transdisciplinary approach allowed for the identification of a serious public health risk arising from the unexpected reuse of chemical containers by the local public against advice. Should this pioneering project not have been completed then it is assumed this behavior could have had a large impact on public wellbeing and ultimately reduced regional productivity and compromised welfare. From the economic evaluation, the costs of implementing this OH approach, helping to avoid harm, were small in comparison to overall project costs. The overall OH Index was 0.34. The satellite project demonstrated good OH operations by managing to incorporate the input across multiple dimensions but was slightly weaker on OH infrastructures (OH Ratio = 1.20). These quantitative results can be used in the initial validation and benchmarking of this novel framework. Limitations of the evaluation were mainly a lack of data due to the length of time since project completion and a lack of formal monitoring of program impact. In future health strategy development and execution, routine monitoring and evaluation from an OH perspective (by utilizing the framework proposed by NEOH), could prove valuable or used as a tool for retrospective evaluation of existing policies.

Indexed as

economic evaluationenvironmental impactOH indexone healthpublic health

Identifiers

PMID29637063
PMCPMC5881173
OpenAlexW2794515844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.